Re: [PATCH] Extend checks on remake rules.

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 01:27:10AM CET:
> On Wednesday 15 December 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[ magic strings ]
> > Why all the variation in these?  That makes the tests harder to read.
> >
> I'd rather not change the use of magic strings on the other remake
> tests, unless you insist.  The test remak3a.test is IMHO simple enough
> not to cause confusion, and changing the tests remake8{a,b}.test would
> be quite cumbersome.

I don't insist.

> > > + test x'$(am_fingerprint)' = x'DummyValue'
> > 
> > Why do you quote DummyValue here?
> >
> Partly for symmetry with the left side, and partly (especially I'd say)
> to make the leading `x' stick out better as "not a part of the expected
> value".
> 
> > The leading x should not be needed on either side.
> >
> True, "should not" -- but I got in the habit of always using it, even
> where technically not needed, rather then risking to forgot it one time
> when it's really required.
> 
> > (several instances below)
> >
> Should I remove them? (sorry if I ask, but the "should" above does
> not make it clear if you're asking to remove them or just noting that
> they are not really required).

Ah, the fun of English negation and passive voice.  I'm not totally firm
in this area either, but I think that "should not be needed" has the
meaning of "is not needed, at least I think so" rather than "don't do
this or I'll poke you with a stick".  I hope somebody corrects me on
this if my interpretation is wrong.

> Attached is also the amended patch.  I will push in 72 hours if there
> are no more objections (and if all my testing on Linux and Solaris
> succeeds).

I don't object, but TBH, I didn't look at the patch again.  ;-)

Thanks!
Ralf